On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 December 2011 20:09:13 Tom Rini wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 06 December 2011 13:34:38 Simon Schwarz wrote: >> >> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/spl.c >> >> >> >> +void jump_to_image_linux(void *arg) >> >> +{ >> >> ... >> >> +} >> >> +void jump_to_image_linux(void *) __attribute__ ((noreturn)); >> > >> > no need for this. do it in one line: >> > __noreturn void jump_to_image_linux(void *arg) >> > { >> > ... >> > } >> > >> > (include linux/compiler.h if need be) >> >> Style? I prefer the single line version myself but I've seen lots of >> the long form when poking around before. > > i think it's a matter of people not knowing the subtle behavior of gcc > attributes and func prototypes vs func definitions. > > i.e. they're used to seeing: > void foo(void) __attribute__((...)); > > so they try doing: > void foo(void) __attribute__((...)) > { > } > > which fails to build, so they get confused and just copy & paste the line > twice since that works. that's my biggest problem with this -- the manual > duplication of the func signature. > > what they don't realize is you can do w/out duplication: > void __attribute__((...)) foo(void) > { > }
Quite possible. Wolfgang, is there a style thing here or would you like to see all of the long form versions converted to the short form and use <linux/compiler.h>? If so I'll make a note on my todo list... Thanks! -- Tom -- Tom
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot